TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
I think Abrams did it to make Kirk look like a cowboy. and was really unnecessary if they had transporters
Star Wars & Sc-Fi Talk
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
When the Prime Directive was brought up in the original series as a story device, it wasn't about strict adherence and a law of the universe that couldn't be violated. Whether they violated it or not is irrelevant. Toying with it was the drama of the story. The conversation here that separates Star Trek from other is it plays on morality issues. Establishing the notion of the Prime Directive is the reason why Star Trek is about morality. The drama comes from how the stories debate the issue not about how no one can violate the Prime Directive or it isn't Star Trek. I'm not talking about it like every story has to abide by it. I'm talking about when dealing with movies especially sci-fi, you have to establish "laws" to the viewer of how this world operates in order to prevent suspension of disbelief. You can have a story where there's this huge obstacle the protagonist has to get by in order reach the goal. There could be an enemy planet that's heavily fortified. Why not just have the Death Star show up in a non Star Wars movie and blow the planet away. End of story. It solves the problem but no one is going to buy because where in hell did the Death Star come from in the first place? The story teller has to establish the rules of the universe. In sci-fi what's the level of technology that restricts how far technology can go. The Prime Directive for Star Trek is one of those rules or laws figuratively for the storyteller and literally in the Star Trek universe. In any fictional story you can have anything happen. Is that good for the story? You have to establish rules so there's no disbelief. If Kirk can flaunt the Prime Directive without any repercussions, what's the point of even having a Prime Directive exist in a Star Trek universe? What's the point of brining it up? JJ Abrams bringing up the Prime Directive is just a superficial device for him to tell people this is Star Trek. Without it, as the critics say JJ Abrams' Star Trek is Star Trek in name only.
Last edited:
It was definitely a plot device. I think the moral issue ITD worked with was supposed to be revenge. It was hardly subtle either, especially with the big-bad ship being explicitly named, "Vengeance."
That's really my only issue with JJ Trek. It's not completely devoid of moral questions or purely built on mindless action as other critics say. The issue for me is that it's all watered down. So watered down that the Enterprise is literally drowning.
.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The Name Vengeance actually has a reasonable excuse, HMS Vengeance is a long and proud linage of Royal navy ships including the Currently serving Nuclear Submarine of the Vangard Class, and there have been two USN ships that could Claim the Title as USS Vengeance.It was definitely a plot device. I think the moral issue ITD worked with was supposed to be revenge. It was hardly subtle either, especially with the big-bad ship being explicitly named, "Vengeance."
That's really my only issue with JJ Trek. It's not completely devoid of moral questions or purely built on mindless action as other critics say. The issue for me is that it's all watered down. So watered down that the Enterprise is literally drowning.
because Starfleet is a Service of Ships covering not just American but all of earth and other planets its logical, and seen that there would be ships adopting the names form non american sources, Potemkin, Yamamoto and Reliant for example. for all we Know there is a USS Liaoning mixed in some starfleet battle group.
Last edited:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
It was definitely a plot device. I think the moral issue ITD worked with was supposed to be revenge. It was hardly subtle either, especially with the big-bad ship being explicitly named, "Vengeance."
That's really my only issue with JJ Trek. It's not completely devoid of moral questions or purely built on mindless action as other critics say. The issue for me is that it's all watered down. So watered down that the Enterprise is literally drowning.
The thing is every story is a morality tale. How and what does the protagonist to get to where he wants to go. That's the drama. They say good science fiction is a reflection upon society today. It's morality of a society and not just an individual. That what's people probably like about Star Trek because in general their stories are a reflection of society today.
Last edited:
Equation
Lieutenant General
True, than again JJ Abrams kind of reflected that in some way with that bombing incident where Khan made a deal to a father who had a dying daughter. It reflects a time where we are living with terrorist bombings and such through out the world.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Anyone a fan of Discovery Channel's Mythbusters should watch for this Saturday where they're going to have a Star Wars special. The myths they're going to try to bust are Luke and Leia swinging over the chasm of the Death Star, Ewoks taking down an AT-ST, and surviving in the belly of a tauntaun.
Miragedriver
Brigadier
The new Star Trek is more action (Star Warsesc) than the typcal diplomatic interaction we are acustom to. If I had to pick between Star Trek and Star Wars universe, I would select Star Wars, since they have better protagenists and light sabers...
Them's fight'n words.
vesicles
Colonel
I am definitely a Star Wars fan and not so much a Trekky... Just finshed my annual Star Wars marathon. Still pissed about the fact that they made the poor Greedo shoot first it's so much cooler when Solo shoots first.
Now I just need to find time for my annual lord of the rings marathon...
it's so much cooler when Solo shoots first.Now I just need to find time for my annual lord of the rings marathon...